Thats why I asked for the values to be considered.A bit of luck with the dice and spoils will come into it, but it does for all maps. Nothing I can do about that.Lets say a bonus region gives a +2 in the centre 4 squares, and this is the only small bonus on the board, I automatically assume that is what you will head for. There for, attacking the centre becomes predictable and boring. Right now, even in sunny games, you will have to think about how to place your 5 troops and where to attack without leaving to much of an opening. Like a game of chess, controlling the centre will make strategic sense, so to reward a player for doing that makes no sense.

The 32 centre squares are the only places to realistically put a bonus system in and as both players have to get across them for the other, you add to the element of luck, not take it away.

If let's say you have a bunch of territs out there that if taken together results in a bonus players have to figure out how to attack to take down as few neutrals as possible and get the bonus as fast as possible.

With the symmetrical board, it will be the same for both players or you end up with unbalanced bonuses and map that is easy to win on against new players.

but doesn't no bonuses mean dice luck matters more?

That is the strategy, luck of the dice will always be part of this game, even in game one, a player complained about the dice. Where you place your 5 and how you move will determine more of the outcome than luck of the dice. Adding in the bonuses takes away the skill and makes the dice even more important in the opening rounds.

DiM tried to take away the luck of the dice in city mogul, so that is a route that can be gone down. Larger figures mean bad dice will not result in a lost game.So instead of the 1,3,5 ratio, I could easily put 4,12,20 or even higher. this is the ratio, I worked out to give the best results in making it an even game.

So you would look at figures like this.1,3,5 (now)4,12,2016,48,8032,152,320

The only bonus I considered in the drafting stage was to have a whole column or row for a bonus in a sliding scale. Column A would be 1 and column D & E 4 back to column H being a 1. Rejected that as it means a player with all of a column would win. Can put it back if demand for it is lots.

koontz1973 wrote:The only bonus I considered in the drafting stage was to have a whole column or row for a bonus in a sliding scale. Column A would be 1 and column D & E 4 back to column H being a 1. Rejected that as it means a player with all of a column would win. Can put it back if demand for it is lots.

koontz1973 wrote:The only bonus I considered in the drafting stage was to have a whole column or row for a bonus in a sliding scale. Column A would be 1 and column D & E 4 back to column H being a 1. Rejected that as it means a player with all of a column would win. Can put it back if demand for it is lots.

I think you should keep it as plain and simple as you can.

Thats what I plan to do, but to get the gameplay stamp, I need a discussion. Had it, can I have the stamp now.

koontz1973 wrote:the higher the number, the luck of the dice becomes less important.

True but remember that all maps with high numbered neutrals have bonuses on them. You might end up making it very unbalanced if you have high neutrals but no bonuses. Why? The benefit of attacking won't be greater than just sitting there and waiting for the other one to bust up some high numbered neutrals. In fact that is a problem I can already imagine as it is now. If this map is played without spoils players will just wait each other out, it will be like Feudal war without bonuses which I think most of us can imagine would not make for very fun games. Spoils will force players to think a little but no spoils also unfortunately means no attacking as it is now. I don't think your innovative attack route system is being exploited to it's full potential. Players will just stack and when someone feel they have enough troops they'll try to go for the opponents "mother territ". 3 player games would be a torture with everyone just waiting each other out. I think you need bonuses to make it a balanced map.

koontz1973 wrote:the higher the number, the luck of the dice becomes less important.

True but remember that all maps with high numbered neutrals have bonuses on them. You might end up making it very unbalanced if you have high neutrals but no bonuses. Why? The benefit of attacking won't be greater than just sitting there and waiting for the other one to bust up some high numbered neutrals. In fact that is a problem I can already imagine as it is now. If this map is played without spoils players will just wait each other out, it will be like Feudal war without bonuses which I think most of us can imagine would not make for very fun games. Spoils will force players to think a little but no spoils also unfortunately means no attacking as it is now. I don't think your innovative attack route system is being exploited to it's full potential. Players will just stack and when someone feel they have enough troops they'll try to go for the opponents "mother territ". 3 player games would be a torture with everyone just waiting each other out. I think you need bonuses to make it a balanced map.

Even in a no spoils game, the choice of stacking is a strategy, not an advantage. There are only 3 neutrals between the 2 players so if you stack your 5 onto one territ, you would have 18. If I take those 3 neutral territs with no lose, I will attack your 18 with 15. Many times with those odds, the attacking player has won. But then you get your 5 and take all of the territory lost and more. This map will come down to how you play it. You say in a 3+ player game, players will stack, they do that now in City Mogul already and Circus Maximus and lots of other maps. That is not new as a strategy. The map with lots of neutrals have bonuses, I agree with that, and a map with lots of high neutrals (City Mogul only) has high amounts of deployable troops, but we are dealing with neutral 1s only. One other map without bonuses or continents on is Circus Maximus, and it is played fairly regularly. It is not Classic numbers or AOR but it has a following. With the neutrals only being one, you would need to have extremely bad dice to lose a lot. With both players getting exactly the same throughout, the player that decides to mass attack will lose. This is not for your quick / speed games. It will need to be played slowly with a lot of thought as a player that mass attacks will lose quickly. The player that moves slowly and with great care over where to place his troops will get a much bigger advantage than. Gillipig, you may think the bonuses would balance the map, but with all respects, I disagree. Bonuses will not go onto the map unless there is serious problems when it comes to Beta, when I say serious problems, I mean the first few games get to round 50+ with no end in site. Only at that point will they go on.

koontz1973 wrote:the higher the number, the luck of the dice becomes less important.

True but remember that all maps with high numbered neutrals have bonuses on them. You might end up making it very unbalanced if you have high neutrals but no bonuses. Why? The benefit of attacking won't be greater than just sitting there and waiting for the other one to bust up some high numbered neutrals. In fact that is a problem I can already imagine as it is now. If this map is played without spoils players will just wait each other out, it will be like Feudal war without bonuses which I think most of us can imagine would not make for very fun games. Spoils will force players to think a little but no spoils also unfortunately means no attacking as it is now. I don't think your innovative attack route system is being exploited to it's full potential. Players will just stack and when someone feel they have enough troops they'll try to go for the opponents "mother territ". 3 player games would be a torture with everyone just waiting each other out. I think you need bonuses to make it a balanced map.

Even in a no spoils game, the choice of stacking is a strategy, not an advantage. There are only 3 neutrals between the 2 players so if you stack your 5 onto one territ, you would have 18. If I take those 3 neutral territs with no lose, I will attack your 18 with 15. Many times with those odds, the attacking player has won. But then you get your 5 and take all of the territory lost and more. This map will come down to how you play it. You say in a 3+ player game, players will stack, they do that now in City Mogul already and Circus Maximus and lots of other maps. That is not new as a strategy. The map with lots of neutrals have bonuses, I agree with that, and a map with lots of high neutrals (City Mogul only) has high amounts of deployable troops, but we are dealing with neutral 1s only. One other map without bonuses or continents on is Circus Maximus, and it is played fairly regularly. It is not Classic numbers or AOR but it has a following. With the neutrals only being one, you would need to have extremely bad dice to lose a lot. With both players getting exactly the same throughout, the player that decides to mass attack will lose. This is not for your quick / speed games. It will need to be played slowly with a lot of thought as a player that mass attacks will lose quickly. The player that moves slowly and with great care over where to place his troops will get a much bigger advantage than. Gillipig, you may think the bonuses would balance the map, but with all respects, I disagree. Bonuses will not go onto the map unless there is serious problems when it comes to Beta, when I say serious problems, I mean the first few games get to round 50+ with no end in site. Only at that point will they go on.

With respect, I agree on the no bonuses - certainly for now. From a chess perspective, if you DID change your mind (which I doubt) then bonuses could be available for the central squares (ie the four very centre squares and then the 12 squares around them as two distinct regions. I can't see how to do that, though, without making the map look really ugly!

thehippo8 wrote:With respect, I agree on the no bonuses - certainly for now. From a chess perspective, if you DID change your mind (which I doubt) then bonuses could be available for the central squares (ie the four very centre squares and then the 12 squares around them as two distinct regions. I can't see how to do that, though, without making the map look really ugly!

While I am sure that a no bonus map will work, I will concede that bonuses might need to go on in the Beta stage of the map. So this is what I propose...

Without changing colours on the map or putting lines around the bonus areas, I will just type the bonus values onto the map.

Stage 1 - map stays as is.Stage 2 - A sentence of Hold a column to grab a bonus with the bonus values under the column names.Stage 3 - Sentence of Grab the squares with the same dot for a bonus, bonus values underneath and the a coloured dot on the squares that fit.Values - C4=4, Next 12=4, Next 12=8, Next 28=12

You see, I spent a lot of time on this map thinking on how to do this and I appreciate how Gillipig and DiM feel about the bonuses, but I believe them to be in the minority and wrong.I will produce the 3 maps for the 3 stages sometime today. I will not do a poll, I will not ask opinions, allow me to go down this route or we will end up with another generic map. For that, go and play Falklands war.

koontz to be honest I only like the knight attack routes, I don't think you're making the most of the possibilities that your innovative attack system offers. It will end up being a very easy map if you only know how knights move in chess and have some patience. "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master" is a great slogan but I don't see how it fits this map. If I were you I would move away from the chessboard and try the knight attack system in some other environment. A chessboard is too small and limited for my taste.

Gillipig wrote:koontz to be honest I only like the knight attack routes, I don't think you're making the most of the possibilities that your innovative attack system offers. It will end up being a very easy map if you only know how knights move in chess and have some patience. "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master" is a great slogan but I don't see how it fits this map. If I were you I would move away from the chessboard and try the knight attack system in some other environment. A chessboard is too small and limited for my taste.

Moving away from the chess board negates the whole point of the map. As for the slogan, it stays as it will only take a minute to learn and a lifetime to master, just like chess. It is easy to start playing, but it takes a long time to play well.

Gillipig, you have made you feelings known towards this map, loud and clear.

koontz1973 wrote:Gillipig, you have made you feelings known towards this map, loud and clear.

Don't take it personal koontz. I try to be honest, when I say I like something I really do like it and I have to let you know when I don't like something. Especially when I like some parts of of the map. I actually only want to help.

I know Gillipig, just been a bad day. Buggered up the Falklands map which did not put me in a good mood, then RL popped its ugly head up.

You know what I am like, always happy to try and get in the ideas of the community but this one is a little more personal.

With the larger board and the bonuses, I am more than happy to produce the images as long as everyone is happy to allow this to go through without till Beta stage. Then, as I said, if needed, it will all be done so n rush jobs.

As for the larger board, I really like the idea so if this one works, a second one may come around but with a different graphical style. Been playing around with the idea of a map where you can only attack 3 territs away. Thus making it even harder to get to the man you want.

As promised, here are the versions with the bonuses added to the map. Top image is what I would like but the other two are the sequence of maps that would go in if the main map proves to be faulty. No changes have been made to the map apart from adding the bonuses.Main map.Second version.This has the column bonus. Hold all territs in a column to claim. Third version.This one has dots on to show where the bonuses are. This is my least favourite one as the dots spoil the board image. But as a map that would have the bonuses, it is better than version 2.

If you were doing the bonus route than I like the dots and utilisation of the chess concept of the importance of the centre. Still not convinced it is necessary but it certainly adds another element. I will think for a bit before voting.

1. no bonuses - in my opinion will lead to boring games predisposed to stalemates, especially in 1v1. 2. column bonus - virtually impossible to hold so not a good idea3. dot bonuses - while i'm not perfectly satisfied with this either, i do think it is a great leap forward especially because of the placement in the center of the map. this way in 1v1 people will have an incentive to attack instead of sitting back stacking and waiting for the other to break the neutrals.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

isaiah40 wrote:I think the dot idea is the way to go. Instead of dots you could outline each square with the colors - stay away from the yellow as it is hard to see in the legend.

Another vote, wow. And just think, my mum always told me not to complain. The dots where there to illustrate the bonuses, but a outline might be better. If that is the way to go, then a great suggestion.